Dear Robert,

> Dear Jim and Teng Kee
>
> Thanks for this discussion - it is a pity that it is quite difficult

to get

> hold of Burmese editions. Is there a good reliable source? I have

managed

> to get some but by no means all of the titles which would be useful.

I know very little about how to get books from Burma. One suggestion
would be to try myanmarbook.com, a website Teng Kee gave for getting
the 19 volume set of the Pali-Burmese dictionary. You may have to
contact them by email for titles that you can't find on their website.

> Just a small question though: what is an example of a "complete"

grammar - I

> do not know of any in any language for any language - many purport

to be

> complete but seldom live up to that claim. It is always essential

to use

> all available sources to complement each other, so I am not sure why

the

> case of Paali should be any different. Even Paini's grammar -

usually

> referenced as the ultimate source for Sanskrit is similarly

"incomplete" for

> Sanskrit and can only shed limited light on the Prakrit languages.

I understand what you are saying. I think that Panini's grammar is
probably about as close as you'll get to a complete grammar. I heard
indirectly from a friend that a Professor of Sanskrit (originally from
India) at the University of Toronto remarked that Panini's grammar is
perfect! But I suppose that might be possible if you include all the
other auxillary works that accompany it such as the Dhaatupaa.tha,
U.naadisuutras, Kaatyaayana's Vaartikas, Pata~njali's Mahaabhaashaa,
and so on. It is my understanding that the Pali grammars came much
later than the early Sanskrit ones. I find a lot of similarities
between the two suggesting that the Pali grammarians have borrowed a
lot from the Sanskrit systems since the Pali grammars use a lot of the
same terms found in them. This is one reason why I find the
comparative study of Pali and Sanskrit with their respective
grammatical systems so interesting and helpful.

Best wishes,

Jim